>> and the "static" keyword for defining class properties are welcome additions.
>
> Why "static" is the wrong word: there is nothing compile-time about the class
> properties. Classes are expressible (anonymous, even), as well as declarable
> in nested (generative) ways.
>
> Using "class" does not work if one wants nested classes, although the default
> that binds prototype properties for ExportableDefinitions including
> Declarations seems like exactly the wrong default: how often do you want
> class Outer { class Nested {} ... } to make Nested a property of
> Outer.prototype, instead of a class property (Outer.Nested)?
>
> Again, the grammatical retasking of certain Declarations to bind prototype
> properties (instead of lexical bindings in the class body, or perhaps class
> properties -- but perhaps not) seems like a mistake.
Terminology-wise, I have always avoided the word “class” in JavaScript and used
the word “type”, instead (with, roughly, constructors implementing types). I
call Properties such as Math.PI type variables. Then you can also talk about
subtyping (instead of subclassing).
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
twitter.com/rauschma
home: rauschma.de
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
